Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Board of Adjustment 2001-11-13BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment November 13,2001, 8:00 a.m. Board Room (Room 130), Estes Park Municipal Building Board: Attending: Chair Jeff Barker, Members Joe Ball, Judy Lamy, Wayne Newsom and Al Sager Chair Barker, Members Lamy, Newsom, and Sager Also Attending: Town Attorney White, Director Joseph, Planner Shirk, Planner Chilcott and Recording Secretary Wheatley Absent:Member Ball Chair Barker called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. 1. CONSENT AGENDA a. The minutes of the October 2,2001, meeting were accepted as presented. 2. LOT 22A. OLYMPUS HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION: TBD BELLEVUE DRIVE, APPLICANT: REX ROSS WALKER - SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST FROM SECTION 4.3. TABLE 4-2 OF THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. The applicant wishes to deviate from the 15-foot rear yard setback to allow a property line setback of 8 feet to allow for the construction of a detached single-family residential structure. The applicant proposes to build a 58’ by 28’ residential structure for employee housing. The plat was recorded in 1934, and was amended in 2000. The anriendment increased the size of the lot to the maximum extent possible. It is Staff’s opinion the size and shape of the lot combine to create special circumstances that result in practical difficulty and would prevent the construction of a typical single-faniily residential structure. Considering the character of the neighborhood and the size and shape of the lot. Staff does not consider the variance substantial. The essential character of the neighborhood would not change. The 15-foot setback restriction has recently been imposed on the owner’s property. The owner purchased the property in 1992, before the adoption of the EVDC. The property was platted in 1934, before the adoption of building setbacks. It is Staff’s opinion the request is the least deviation that allows relief. No significant issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing staff relative to code compliance or the provision of public services. Member Sager asked why property corners and building location were not staked. Joe Coop advised it was an oversight due to his absence. He also confirmed that the sewer manholes are in the right-of-way. Based on the fact that the property corners and building location were not staked, it was moved and seconded (Sager/Newsom) to table the application until the December 4,2001 meeting. Motion passed unanimously with one absent. BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment November 13,2001 Page 2 Planner Chilcott reviewed the staff report. The applicant requests a six foot variance from the mandated 10 foot side yard setback as required in the “RM” Multi-Family Residential zoning district to expand an existing deck attached to the two story building on the southeast portion of the lot. This building was built in the late 1930’s. The southwest corner of the building and the deck are situated four feet three inches from the side property line and are within the ten foot side yard setback. The deck cannot be rebuilt in the same location or expanded without a variance. There can be beneficial use of the property without the variance. This is a request for a six-foot variance from the ten foot mandated setback which is substantial. Replacing and widening the existing deck will not substantially alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Adjoining property owners have not contacted staff to comment on this proposal and staff is not aware of their opinions about the variance request. The variance would not affect the delivery of public services. The applicant purchased the property after the February 1, 2000 effective date of the EVDC and with knowledge of the requirements. The variance, if granted may offer the least deviation from the regulations that will afford relief. There had been a storage shed, not shown on the plat, located in the southeast corner of the lot within the ten-foot side yard setback which has now been removed. Mark Hewitt, applicant, was present and reviewed their proposal. It is a safety issue to widen the deck and relocate the stairs. Public Comment: None. Based on the improvement in safety and staff recommendations, it was moved and seconded (Newsom/Sager) to approve a side yard property line setback of 4 feet as opposed to a 10-foot setback as required in the “RM” zoning district with the following conditions. Motion passed unanimously with one absent. All variances granted by the Board of Adjustment shall become null and void if a Building Permit has not been issued and paid for, and the work commenced within twelve (12) months from the date the variance is granted. 1. The property owner shall provide a setback certificate by a registered land surveyor for the side yard setback. 4. TIMBER CREEK CHALETS. 2115 FALL RIVER ROAD; LOT 1 ADDITION. APPLICANT: FRED & DEBRA WOJCIK - VARI FROM SECTION 7.5. LANDSCAPING & BUFFERS. OF THE ESTES VALLEY development code Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. The applicant wishes to P'ac® approximately 1.5 parking spaces and a driveway within the landscape setback. A development plan was conditionally approved July, 2001. A condition of approval was to either redesign the parking area to conform to Section 7.5, or to petition the Board of Adjustment for a variance. It is staff’s opinion special circumstances exist. Other site design options exist; however. Staff d068 consider the requested variance substantial. In order to minimize the impact o the parking and driveway on Fall River Road, the applicant ha8 ProP°s®d upgrade the existing wooden fence by extending it 16 feet to t.hef painting Staff suggests additional landscaping be located in front of the fence. The property was rezoned to the A-1 district and the landscaping requirements implemented with the adoption of the EVDC. The site plan could be redesigned to reduce the amount of asphalt surface that is not for use for parking. No BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment November 13,2001 Page 3 significant issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing staff relative to code compliance or the provision of public services. Member Sager asked about staking. Ross Stephen of Cornerstone Engineering, representing the applicant, advised that the cabin had been staked for the development plan review. The encroachment, however, is only with the parking and driveway area. The requested location for the additional vegetation appears to be in the right-of-way and they would prefer to do it on the other side of the fence. Director Joseph suggested that the fence could be turned toward the cabin and the landscaping placed between the road and the fence. Ross Stephen agreed that this could work. Public Comment: None. Based on staff findings, it was moved and seconded (Newsom/Lan^) to approve the requested variance to Section 7.5, Landscaping and Buffers; subsection F.b (6) No Development in Street Frontage Buffer Area of the EVDC, specifically to place two parking spaces and a driveway within the landscape setback with the following conditions. Mot'on Pfs.se(} unanimously with one absent. All variances granted by the Board of Adiustment shall become null and void if a Building Permit has not been issued and paid for, and the work commenced within twelve (12) months from the date the variance Is granted. 1. Submittal of a revised development plan incorporating the a Three (3) additional coniferous trees, minimum of 8 f®et tal1 f c healthful condition, shall be located along the base of the fence. Trees shall be located so they will not interfere with exis^ng overhead power lines and shall be located outside of the road right-of-way. 2. Prior todnce of a building permit, oomplianoe with the sign code is required. Planner Shirk reviewed the s^^repo . ljeu Qf the 35.foot maximum Code to allow for a niaximum he>gh TQwn Board approveci adjusted height for this slope, Oc . 16) 2ooi, the Planning the rezoning and subdivision of the la • , . ,or tt1e 17.5-acre senior Commission conditionaiiy approved aJj® ., p Dr0n0sed will have a maximum living facility. The Congregate Lving BuM ng aj P W ■ t.level parking height of 40 feet from original grade This includes a oas^ dec|jne this BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment November 13,2001 Page 4 approve the request, the applicant will proceed with the conditionally approved development plan. It is Staff’s opinion that the slope of the lot and the nature of the facility combine to create special circumstances. Due to the satisfaction of the comprehensive plan goal of providing senior housing and code intent of minimizing impervious coverage, will not have the effect of nullifying or impairing the intent and purposes of either the Code or the Comprehensive Plan. It is Staff’s opinion the additional five feet of height will have less of ari impact on the character of the neighborhood than reducing the height and increasing the amount of surface parking lot. The structure could be redesigned to eliminate the parking garage, which would allow the building to be aPProx'matte|y 1 narrower9 reducing the need for the height variance. However, due to the slope of the lot, and the nature of the building, it is likely a variance would b® necessary even with the redesign. It is Staff’s opinion the architect has minimized the requested variance to the fullest extent possible, and the request therefore represents the least deviation that would allow forthe qarage. No significant issues or concerns were expressed by reviewing sta relative to code compliance or the provision of public services. Staking. done in September and should still be there. Member Newsom complimented the applicant on their design for the area. Sr^ooShafnTbe^^^^^^^^^ Based on staff findings, ^^^,;^rSae“n,^mum approve the requested variance to adiusted height for this from original grade in lieu ‘J® “■'00|5Iotlon pasSed. Those voting yes: months from the date the variance is grantea^^^ verj(ying finished floor 1- t,e"nSTaf:ebebLlSr.o the building ohiciai at the foundation 2. Compliance with the submitted site plan. BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Board of Adjustment November 13,2001 Page 5 6. REPORTS None. Member Sager requested that the policy of not having Board of Adjustment the day after a holiday be adhered to in the future. The regular meeting was postponed this month due to a conflict with the Town Board budget hearings, which then placed it the day after Veterans Day. Staff will do their best to see that this will not happen in the future. Member Newsom suggested that Staff let applicants know that their submittals will be tabled without the proper site staking. Director Joseph advised that Staff will check on the staking and work with the applicant to make sure the stakes are clearly visible. There being no further business, Chair Barker adjourned the meeting at 9:15 a.m. Jeff Barker, Chair Meribeth Wheatley, Recording Secretary